Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McDaniel, No. 2005-CA-00389-SCT.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-CA-00389-SCT. |
| Citation | 951 So.2d 523 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. Milton McDANIEL and Bettye C. McWilliams, Executrix of the Estate Of Larry McWilliams, Deceased. Kelly C. Robinson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Lonnie D. Bailey, Glenn F. Beckham, Greenwood, Edward Blackmon, Jr., Canton, Thomas R. Peters, attorneys for appellant.
Thomas W. Brock, William S. Guy, McComb, Wayne Dowdy, Magnolia, attorneys for appellees.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. The motion for rehearing is denied. The original opinion is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor.
¶ 2. Plaintiffs filed suit against Illinois Central Railroad Company (ICRR) in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County under the case name Robert Allen, et al v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., and pursuant to then existing Mississippi law regarding joinder and venue. Plaintiffs asserted their claims for asbestos related personal injuries under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1939). Prior to the commencement of trial in the matter, ICRR entered into a contingent settlement agreement with the remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel filed two separate motions with the circuit court to enforce the settlement agreement on behalf of a small number of the remaining plaintiffs, more than two years after the contingent settlement was agreed upon. After several hearings, the circuit court granted, in part, and denied, in part the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and overruled ICRR's motion to dismiss, and to compel production, to allow further investigation and discovery, and for findings and conclusions of law. ICRR, feeling aggrieved, appealed to this Court regarding the enforcement of the settlement between ICRR and plaintiffs Milton McDaniel (McDaniel) and Larry McWilliams (McWilliams). In addition, plaintiffs' counsel filed a cross-appeal, on behalf of plaintiff Kelly Robinson (Robinson), pertaining to Robinson's dismissal for not conforming to the applicable statute of limitations.
¶ 3. Finding no error, we affirm the findings of the circuit court.
¶ 4. On June 19, 2001, counsel for ICRR sent a letter to plaintiffs' counsel stipulating the payment to thirteen specifically named plaintiffs in the cause of Robert Allen, et al v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. The letter also set forth a contingent payment procedure detailing the payment of negotiated amounts to the remainder of the plaintiffs involved in Robert Allen, et al v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. Pursuant to the agreed upon payment procedure, ICRR would not tender payment for any remaining plaintiffs' claims without receiving certain documentation from each individual plaintiff, including: a pulmonary questionnaire, authorizations, and medical documentation establishing the claimed disease process. Also, ICRR reserved the right to assert three defenses to payment under the conditional settlement agreement including a statute of limitations defense, evidence of a prior release, or if the plaintiff was never in the employment of ICRR. As both ICRR and the plaintiffs assert, numerous claims were settled in accordance with the established procedure.
¶ 5. In September 2003, and again in January 2004, after ICRR suspended settlement payments, the plaintiffs filed motions with the Circuit Court of Jefferson County prompting the circuit court to enforce the settlement agreement. ICRR would eventually oppose any further enforcement of the settlement due to alleged irregularities in the documentation of certain claims by way of its motion to dismiss certain claims in the case. The circuit court then entertained four separate hearings pertaining to issues raised in connection with these motions.
¶ 6. At the first two motion hearings, the circuit court reopened discovery and directed both parties to file briefs in anticipation of a final hearing on the settlement issues. At the succeeding motion hearing, the circuit court denied ICRR's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Specifically, regarding the individual plaintiffs currently on appeal, the circuit court found that releases signed by plaintiffs McDaniel and McWilliams did not bar them from participation in the settlement agreement. The circuit court also considered the claim of Robinson, and determined Robinson's cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ICRR subsequently motioned the circuit court to reconsider its findings based on newly discovered evidence, to withhold entry of final judgment to allow further investigation, and for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court denied ICRR's motions in a final hearing on the issues, and ICRR perfected the present appeal with this Court regarding McDaniel and McWilliams. Plaintiffs perfected a cross-appeal with this Court regarding the circuit court's findings pertaining to the dismissal of Robinson from the action. After full consideration of the issues, we find no error by the trial court and accordingly affirm.
¶ 7. We have decreed on numerous occasions "[t]his court will not disturb the findings of the chancellor unless it is shown the chancellor was clearly erroneous and the chancellor abused his discretion." Howard v. TotalFina E & P USA, Inc., 899 So.2d 882, 888 (Miss.2005) (citing Hill v. Southeastern Floor Covering Co., Inc., 596 So.2d 874, 877 (Miss.1992); Bell v. Parker, 563 So.2d 594, 597 (Miss.1990)). Also, "a circuit judge sitting without a jury is accorded the same deference with regard to [] factual findings as is a chancellor." Kight v. Sheppard Bldg. Supply, Inc., 537 So.2d 1355, 1358 (Miss.1989) (citing Hardy v. First Nat'l Bank of Vicksburg, 505 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Miss.1987)). "Abuse of discretion is found when the reviewing court has a `definite and firm conviction' that the court below committed a clear error of judgment and the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." Howard, 899 So.2d at 888 (citing Caracci v. Int'l Paper Co., 699 So.2d 546, 556 (Miss.1997)).
¶ 8. ICRR asserts the circuit court committed reversible error by granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and ordering ICRR to pay the requisite settlement amounts, in light of false affidavits submitted to ICRR by the plaintiffs. On appeal ICRR argues, specifically, both McDaniel and McWilliams provided false, sworn affidavits in an attempt to distill settlement funds from ICRR. McDaniel and McWilliams dismiss ICRR's claims as an attempt to distort innocuous details into facts constituting reversible error.
¶ 9. ICRR alleges it began to grow curious and concerned about the contingent settlement procedure sometime after it was agreed upon by the parties. ICRR asserts its concerns were piqued after it became aware of incongruities involving plaintiff Fred Tyler (Tyler) in a similar contingent settlement agreement.1 During its investigation, ICRR discovered Tyler's participation in a previous, 1996 Jefferson County, asbestos case.2 ICRR then learned Tyler was diagnosed with an asbestos related disease more than three years before filing suit against ICRR, thus allowing for a statute of limitations defense as set forth in the settlement agreement. According to ICRR, "Tyler's non-disclosure of his participation and settlements received in the Cosey case raised a red flag for ICRR." In response to ICRR's concerns in this case, counsel for the plaintiffs sent a letter to ICRR wherein the plaintiffs agreed to provide an affidavit from each remaining plaintiff regarding all prior asbestos litigation.3 This letter provided in pertinent part:
With regard to the Tyler matter, we have spoken to Mr. Tyler. It is apparent that when Mr. Tyler was questioned about prior litigation, he understood that he was being asked about a prior case against the railroad. Also, the questionnaire that he signed states "Yes" as the response to the question about prior litigation against asbestos manufacturers.
To make sure that this situation does not occur again, we will be supplying affidavits from all remaining unpaid Allen and Eakins plaintiffs regarding all prior asbestos litigation. If a plaintiff has been involved in prior litigation, we will provide you with any document that we can obtain for your review.
¶ 10. In accordance with the letter, the plaintiffs produced fifty-eight affidavits disclosing other asbestos litigation, and after an investigation of its own accord, ICRR determined fifty-six of the plaintiffs' affidavits were false. Specifically, ICRR claims McDaniel and McWilliams excluded information from their affidavits regarding their status as named plaintiffs in separate and additional asbestos cases. McDaniel's affidavit states:
I have never been a plaintiff or a claimant in any asbestos suit other than Allen v. ICRR, No. 2000-100, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi and Alderson v. Garlock, Inc., et al, No. 2002-124-CV3, in the Circuit Court of Jones County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District.
ICRR points out this affidavit fails to mention McDaniel's participation as a plaintiff in McNeil v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 2002-283-CV9.
¶ 11. Betty McWilliams, executrix of the estate of Larry McWilliams, submitted the affidavit ICRR takes issue with; it states:
Larry L. McWilliams has never been a plaintiff or a claimant in any asbestos suit other than Allen v. ICRR, No. 2000-100, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, MS and Moore v. Garlock, Inc. et al, No. 2002-470, in the Circuit Court of Smith County, MS.
ICRR points out this affidavit fails to mention McWilliams' participation as a plaintiff in McNeil, and Acuff v. American Optical Corporation, 2003-159-CV8.
¶ 12. ICRR insists the plaintiffs' omissions of McNeil and Acuff from, not only the McDaniel and McWilliams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackmon v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
...Daniels v. Union Pacific R. Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 850, 851-852, 904 N.E.2d 1003,1005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009); Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. McDaniel, 951 So.2d 523, 530-32 (Miss. 2006); Wolf v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 840 A.2d 1004, 1007-1008 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). Having considered these approa......
-
City of Jackson v. Johnson
...v. Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. , 960 So. 2d 399, 405 (Miss. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ill. Cent. R.R. v. McDaniel , 951 So. 2d 523, 526 (Miss. 2006).STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES¶72. The City's brief reads, "the trial court erred in allowing Plaintiff's expert to render an......
-
Sinclair v. Burl. nor. and Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...releasing the employer for unknown liability that was not considered and resolved in an informed manner."); Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. McDaniel, 951 So.2d 523, 531-32 (Miss.2006); Oliverio v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 14 Misc.3d 219, 822 N.Y.S.2d 699, 702 (N.Y.Sup.2006); Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. ......
-
McCord v. Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.
...the chancellor unless it is shown the chancellor was clearly erroneous and the chancellor abused his discretion.'" Ill. Cent. R.R. v. McDaniel, 951 So.2d 523, 526 (Miss.2006) (citing Howard v. Totalfina E & P USA, Inc., 899 So.2d 882, 888 (Miss.2005); Hill v. Southeastern Floor Covering Co.......
-
SIGNING IT ALL AWAY: THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF WAIVERS AND RELEASES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.
...facts). (282.) Id. (283.) See id. (284.) Callen, 332 U.S. at 631. (285.) See id. (286.) See, e.g., Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. McDaniel, 951 So. 2d 523 (Miss. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1208 (2007); Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Acuff, 950 So. 2d 947 (Miss. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1280 (2007);......